On Jul 13, 12:36 am, Charlie Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Moving to new thread...No not lib/xml/, that's were we had been. we need the code under lib/ libxml/. the xml/ directory is there only for backward compatibility.So is this what you are proposing? lib libxml.rb libxml attributes.rb attr.rb <plus other ruby files> Meaning libxml.rb would look like this: require 'libxml_ruby' require 'libxml/attributes' <etc>Yep. See...http://groups.google.com/group/libxml-devel/browse_thread/thread/2b87c9656c14eb2c/ae99e0bf4ffa9603?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=libxml+name#ae99e0bf4ffa9603
I agree on the subdirectory, but I would vote its called xml and not libxml - mostly because that is what it already is. Or is there some compatibility issue with other ruby xml libraries?
In truth though, its a fairly academic discussion. From a a user perspective they'll just say require 'libxml' and how the code is actually pulled in irrelevant.
As Dan said in another thread too, we can set XML = LibXML
I interpret that to mean the C code should change the name of the module it defines from XML to LibXML. Right now libxslt defines a module called XSLT, and the xpath code defines a class called XPath (should be a module). In other words, the libraries are naming the modules after the functionality they provide, versus the library name.
Either way is of course fine, and I can't see how one way is better than the other. Since this decision was made long ago, changing it strikes me as arbitrary, mostly change for changes sake. What benefit does it offer that would make it worth it?
Charlie
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ libxml-devel mailing list libxml-devel@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/libxml-devel
